Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: XGMII New electrical Characteristics

I think that it is important to highlight what Jonathan said in his first
paragraph, especially considering this will be the first time many of the TF
members have ever submitted a ballot or a comment on an IEEE 802.3 proposed
standard.  A NO vote shall be accompanied by a TR (technical required)
comment; otherwise, we don't know how to change that NO vote into a YES
vote.  If you issue a TR comment, then you should vote NO on the draft, but
that is only a suggestion.  It is okay to vote NO on the draft, especially
if there is a technical change that you feel is required.  

When you generate a TR comment, you shall provide a suggested remedy.
Absence of a suggested remedy leaves the resolution of the comment up to the
editors.  For example, you cannot have a TR comment like this:
Comment: XGMII not easy to design.
SuggRemedy: Change XGMII electricals.
TR comments like that will be rejected.  You must provide a remedy, and
remedies have been known to span more than one page.  The suggested remedy
must tell the editor exactly how to make the change.

We are editors; we are not the authors.  The TF is the author of the
document.  As the author, you are responsible the text you want to see in
the document.  As the editors, we are responsible for putting text in the
document as directed by the authors.


Editor-in-Chief, P802.3ae

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Thatcher [mailto:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 1:54 PM
To: Yongbum Kim; 'rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; HSSG; Jeff Warren
Subject: RE: XGMII New electrical Characteristics


Regarding "technical_required_change NO votes:" it MUST be recognized that
each "NO vote" must be accompanied by a proposed remedy. Said remedy, to be
adopted as part of a subsequent draft, MUST receive at least 75% approval.

I am taking some risk here, so please accept this comment in the spirit in
which it is given:
To cast a no vote exclusively because one does not agree with the decision
of the body at large is not likely to be a productive activity. While we
would never turn down a comment, or even discourage input, we do need to
focus on those things that will correct, refine, and otherwise improve the
draft standard. Every individual needs to apply their own filter before
taking the "pen in hand." I would suggest that "disagreement," alone may not
be a sufficient metric.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yongbum Kim [mailto:ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 1:57 PM
> To: 'rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; HSSG; Jeff Warren
> Subject: RE: XGMII New electrical Characteristics
> Rich,
> 	You are right.  The vote was taken for source centered and
> approved.  My answer was not "official" 802.3ae response, but 
> was for a
> fellow implimentor.  I saw too many people not agreeing, and some of
> those will cast technical_required_change NO votes in the future.  And
> as for the past voltage level example of XGMII, it may change again if
> too many people disagree.  I should have explained this in my 
> prior e-mail.  
> 	From my point of view, I would prefer source centered, because 
> it allows back-to-back XGMII.  But as long as we are in early adopter 
> market, we will have to endure these uncertainties 
> 	regards,
> Yong.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rich Taborek [SMTP:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:	Monday, November 13, 2000 12:14 PM
> To:	HSSG; Jeff Warren
> Subject:	Re: XGMII New ElectricalI  Characteristics
> Yongbum,
> I thought the XGMII clocking issue was settled by motion to 
> revert back
> to Source Centered timing as described in P802.3ae draft 1.0. I
> understand that there still may be debate, but if settled by 
> motion, it
> would take 75% to change what will be written into D2.0. I don't have
> the actual motion, so could someone (Jeff Warren?) please settle this
> issue.
> Best Regards,
> Rich
> --
> Yongbum Kim wrote:
> > 
> > The group formally voted for HSTL 1.5V for XGMII Class 1 
> and suitably
> > compatible low-voltage (but not *decided* as HSTL class 1) 
> MDIO.  The
> > Source Simultaneous versus Source Centered timing is still 
> under debate,
> > but it is still written as source centered timing.
> > 
> > Yong.
> > ======================================================
> > Yongbum "Yong" Kim                  (408)570-0888 x141
> > Chief Technical Officer             (408)570-0880  fax
> > Allayer Communications               ybkim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 107 Bonaventura Drive 
> > San Jose, CA 95134
> > ==This Message is forwarded by RoX Switch at 1 Gb/s.==
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:   James Colin [SMTP:james_colin_j@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent:   Monday, November 13, 2000 5:05 AM
> > To:     stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc:     James_Colin_J@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:        XGMII New Electrical Characteristics
> > 
> > Hello There,
> > Can someone update me in regards to XGMII electrical
> > characteristics? Did it went back to SSTL_2 levels or
> > HSTL 1.5v or anything else?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > James
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> Richard Taborek Sr.                 Phone: 408-845-6102       
> Chief Technology Officer             Cell: 408-832-3957
> nSerial Corporation                   Fax: 408-845-6114
> 2500-5 Augustine Dr.        mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Santa Clara, CA 95054